COMMENT | Concrete steps needed by govt for film industry to flourish

COMMENT | Last week, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the government did not want to interfere in the creative industry and supported freedom of expression for artists. His remarks came after he watched the local movie “Sheriff: Narko Integriti”.

While these statements are welcomed, they starkly contrast the reality on the ground, especially after the new Film Censorship Board (LPF) guidelines and several recent cases faced by local filmmakers and community screenings.

We agree with the prime minister that film is an important medium. Our experience of using films for education and discussion demonstrates the importance of this medium which can foster positive social change and promote human rights.

We hoped to expand the reach and power of such social films by providing feedback during engagements with LPF.

Our feedback was aimed at reducing censorship and instead empowering audiences to make educated decisions about their viewing material.

However, we note with concern that the new guidelines expand LPF’s scope. Under Part One of the General Policy (Bahagian I Dasar Umum) 2.1.3 lays out the types of screenings permitted, methods of censorship, and expands the kinds of screenings subject to censorship.

The new guidelines state that “all forms of films screened in hotels, video on demand (VoD), tapes for sale, film festivals, associations or organisations, screenings in embassies, and other places must be screened according to cinema censorship”.

Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which Malaysia is a signatory to, foreign embassies are treated as their sovereign territories.

The expansion of the new censorship guidelines to pejabat kedutaan or the offices of embassies could potentially breach this.

The inclusion of film festivals, associations, and organisations as subject to cinema censorship is also concerning, as the Film Censorship Act 2002 should only apply to films being screened in a commercial public context.

Small-scale, private, and non-profit film screenings should be excluded from these guidelines.

The inclusion of such screenings under the new guidelines appears to be an expansion of LPF’s jurisdiction to platforms and spaces that are ultra vires, or beyond the powers of the Film Censorship Act (FCA) 2002.

Actions against filmmakers

The FCA is already restrictive and has been used to criminalise non-profit screenings by civil society organisations. The most recent example was the investigation and subsequent fine issued to Johor Yellow Flame (JYF).

The organisation’s planned screening of the Hong Kong film She’s in Jail (2024) was cancelled by enforcement officers from the Home Ministry on March 30. Organiser Lee Chen Kang who was arrested in March has now been issued a fine of RM2,500.

Such investigations breach Malaysians’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. With the new LPF guidelines, we could potentially see an increase in such arrests and investigations.

Filmmakers and films are also subject to the Penal Code as the case against the Mentega Terbang filmmakers demonstrates.

Last week, the magistrates’ court decided that the application of the filmmakers to challenge the constitutionality of the Section 298 charges against them could proceed to the High Court.

While we are glad that these questions of law will be determined in the High Court, it is a clear example of how filmmaking is now a dangerous vocation in Malaysia and far from the internationally competitive industry the prime minister imagines.

The new guidelines

Filmmakers not only have to contend with potential prosecution for their films but also with the new LPF guidelines, which were lauded as updated and improved.

The new guidelines not only maintain the status quo but are in fact more restrictive in some instances.

The guidelines explicitly state that their purpose is to protect the government and its leaders from films that are anti-government.

This begs the question, why does the government need to be protected from films? While the film “Sheriff” is notable for its portrayal of police corruption, often a red line in Malaysian film censorship, the new guidelines do not make it easier for such themes.

At the launch of the new guidelines, the home minister said they were formulated within the context of the Rukun Negara. However, some of the guidelines raise concerns about their compatibility with the Rukun Negara.

For example, under section 2.1.1 of the new LPF religious guidelines, films that touch on “teaching that promotes anti-God [beliefs], atheism, agnosticism, scientology, religious pluralism, liberalism, blasphemy, supporting fanatical beliefs, criticising, denouncing, or discrediting any religion” will be subject to more scrutiny.

Firstly, the classification of “liberalism” and “religious pluralism” as unacceptable elements in films is directly contrary to the Rukun Negara.

The preamble of the Rukun Negara guarantees “a liberal approach towards our traditional heritage that is rich and diverse”. Accordingly, in the context of the Rukun Negara, liberalism is a positive value to ensure inclusivity and a diversity of ideas and expression in our plural society.

Secondly, it is unacceptable that religious pluralism is cast as a negative value in the LPF guidelines, let alone that it is equated or categorised alongside negative elements such as “supporting fanatical beliefs”.

In 2023, the United Nations called on all states to foster religious freedom and pluralism as a way to combat intolerance against persons based on religion or belief.

To cast “religious pluralism” as something negative in films is in itself religious intolerance. As a multicultural and multi-religious country, religious pluralism should be seen as a positive value in Malaysia.

The fact that religious pluralism in a movie warrants scrutiny from the censors is a disservice to us all.

Making film flourish

Film can be used to foster greater understanding and appreciation of our diverse society.

We are a nation of people with different faiths, cultures, and values who must be able to encounter each other honestly and learn to deal with the differences in a respectful way without violence and discrimination.

Peace in our country cannot be “maintained” by suppressing difficult realities. If we approach film as a tool for good, rather than a potentially seditious product, then we can potentially facilitate difficult conversations about our society that are too often deemed sensitive and suppressed.

If the Madani government is serious about encouraging the local film industry then there are concrete steps it can take.

Firstly, It is high time for the government to consider moving LPF out of the Home Ministry. The filmmaking industry cannot flourish as long as filmmakers are restricted to making films that adhere to a national security lens.

Secondly, what filmmakers need is a free and safe environment to create.

The government can create that by establishing a clear timeline for abolishing the prior censorship system that makes it mandatory for all films to be submitted and subjected to the approval of the film censorship board before they can be screened.

Ultimately, all stakeholders of the Malaysian film ecosystem have the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of our Constitution.

Therefore a balanced framework for film regulation and creation must be adopted - one that respects filmmakers’ freedom, supports industry growth, protects consumer rights, and safeguards vulnerable groups.

Freedom Film Network (FFN) is a non-profit organisation based in Petaling Jaya that aspires to create awareness and social impact by harnessing the power of film.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

How Kurosawa and punk rock shaped Finas chairperson

Nadira Ilana tells hard truths about Sabah through films

Jagat director's new film to premiere at prestigious festival

COMMENT | Why can't Malaysians see the tiger with all its stripes?